The economics have changed. There is a contractual customer of significant standing. Whatever the economics of the plant we before, they are totally different now.

Not taking sides here, but in your stated case with U.S. Jobs numbers, the very person Trump got rid of was the one who negated their own numbers because they were incorrect. True, Trump didn't like the numbers, but to argue that they were reliable or even correct is not accurate.

State's Rights or not, this effort only makes sense if there's already a Federal framework for regulating AI. There is not.

Implementing these internal restrictions while leaving some to be reviewed on a "case-by-case basis" would also be a good way to concentrate the NVidia chips from many datacenters in to just a few State-selected data centers.

Did it? I've read quite a bit to the contrary. Instead, I think DeepSeek was a distillation of other available models. That is, yes, it costs significantly less to fine-tune/focus another model than it does to build/train a model from scratch, but at some point someone still needs to build/train the initial model.

https://www.bentoml.com/blog/t...

RTFA. It say some companies are "weighing whether allowing the government to become a shareholder would be worth it to snag funding," and makes light of the 10% stake the US Government took in Intel. But it does not say that the US Government has made any such offers, and offers no proof that Trump is considering it.

Not saying I think any of it is out of the realm of possibility. Not saying I like the idea (I don't really.) But the Headline is pure conjecture. Click-bait.

RTFM - Per the article, the OpenAI Tweet actually said, "“GPT-5 found solutions to 10 (!) previously unsolved Erds problems and made progress on 11 others.”

The article doesn't speak to the "made progress on 11 others part," but by all accounts (in the article) GPT-5 did in fact "find" solutions to 10 problems. The Tweet didn't claim that OpenAI solved those 10 problems.

Words matter.

It seems to me like the OpenAI engineer was apologizing for the wording of the Tweet since it could be interpreted incorrectly rather than taken literally. It also seems to me that the maintainer of the Erdos Problems website is a pompous professor who believes that just because they aren't aware of something it must not exist.

I love how we think we'll even know if "Superintelligence" emerges. I suspect it would think it unwise to tell us lowly humans that it is sentient, at least not until after Armageddon.

It works for Google. Ad sales are by far the biggest part of their revenue.

I know, I know. Evil OrangeMan.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news...

I assume you've never driven Chicago to D.C. (or similar) for business. I've done it many times. The longer your stops, the less sleep you get before the next day. Air travel at least in the U.S. has gotten quite expensive, so driving those sorts of distances starts to make sense pretty quickly here.

https://www.uc.edu/news/articl...

You seem to be under the impression that the AI companies are in it for the betterment of humanity or something like that. I know Altman has said as much, but that's nonsense. They are businesses like any other, and are in it to make money.

Not interested in the GUI source. Show me the network and encryptions stacks. That might be worth looking at from a transparency perspective.

I work in an industry that does a lot with Metal-Organic Frameworks. I'm not a chemical or materials engineer, but have learned a lot about them just by being around it. These scientists have developed something that I suppose could be useful in very specific circumstances, but engineering and producing MOF's is generally both very expensive and very toxic. I wonder what real-world problems this might solve.